"...lennon and his chinese f*ckin' missis.."
ROBBIE
"bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rWqfa.6479$dE2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Martha Bridegam" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E7D4CCA...@pacbell.net...
> >
>
> > All of which is a way of saying that I would like to get back to talking
> about history and literature for
> > their own sakes instead of seeing everyone use facts and phrases as
blunt
> instruments in a basically
> > lowbrowed slanging match over the rightness or wrongness of the current
> war.
> >
> >
> > /M
>
> Lowbrowed? Lowbrowed?
>
> Power to the people, power to the people right on.
>
> John Lennon
>
I heard on the radio this morning that Yoko Ono is piping up against the
war. She's said that Lennon would have told Blair off. The presenter-
needless to say this was LBC, such a character would not be allowed freedom
of speech on the Beeb- rightly said '...where do these rock stars wives get
off lecturing everyone? (He had Bianca Jagger simpering down the phone
previously) Go and record some bloody hideous music or paint some rotten
picture or better still, lie in bed for a week!'
He's on the shortlist for ROBBIE's new 'Person of the Week'* award. 'PERSON'
notice Mab, 'PERSON'
*This is open to the general public regardless of age, creed, gender or
race, though we do welcome applications from people of a diverse cultural
background**
** white males can fuck off unless queer and willing to prove it
--
"..sometimes I will and then again I think I won't.."-- Chuck Berry, Reelin'
& Rockin'
jmc
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5uktj$rre$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
(He had Bianca Jagger simpering down the phone
> previously)
I happen to believe that Bianca Jagger is a fine and upstanding person, full
of courage, correct (meaning truthful) conviction and global insight.
Certainly, I'll never know what she saw in that superficial, dilettante fop
of an ex-husband! To my idea, she stands in sharp contrast to Yoko, who has
sat in her ivory tower for the past 30 years, merely counting the cheques
and stoking the fires of Lennon's legend.
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
It was good of Yoko to license "Imagine" to Amnesty International:
<http://www.amnestyusa.org/imagine/imagine.html>.
Her "War Is Over (if you want it)" billboards are a good example of a usefully
de-escalating kind of dissent from conflict. Instead of echoing and adding to
the destructive overexcitement, as some recent protests have done, the
billboards suggest that an effort to make peace should involve calming down and
thinking clearly.
I gather her art gallery work isn't as good, but maybe that's because when it
comes to "conceptual art" she seems to put her real energy into having ideas
for artworks, not physically creating them. Didn't she actually publish a book
of written recipes for artworks or art events? Perhaps she should mainly stick
to recipes -- the way Borges and Vonnegut, rather than getting bogged down in
long novels, save their own time and the reader's by writing short plot
summaries of fictitious novels that would be tedious if written in full.
/M
jmc
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E83531D...@pacbell.net...
> I gather her art gallery work isn't as good, but maybe that's because when
it
> comes to "conceptual art" she seems to put her real energy into having
ideas
> for artworks, not physically creating them. Didn't she actually publish a
book
> of written recipes for artworks or art events? Perhaps she should mainly
stick
> to recipes -- the way Borges and Vonnegut, rather than getting bogged down
in
> long novels, save their own time and the reader's by writing short plot
> summaries of fictitious novels that would be tedious if written in full.
>
> /M
A work of art which hasn't been physically created is not a work of art! Art
cannot have recipes, as (unlike cooking) it is not a science. Your post
posits a worrying dislike of human creativity - its implication that a long
novel wastes the reader's time is pretty dispiriting. I count the hours
spent reading Moby Dick or Brothers Karamazov as amongst the best of my
life!
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
No, no, what I meant was only that uneven artists should recognize what they're
good at and stick to it.
Melville and Dostoyevsky were good at writing full-length novels, but Borges
and Vonnegut weren't, and had the grace to admit it.
Similarly, people like Magritte and Dali were not only good at having wild
ideas for art, they were also good at making physical artworks out of their
ideas. Yoko is better at having ideas than she is at giving them physical form,
& I think she should admit it.
/M
jmc
Yoko is better at having ideas than she is at giving them physical form,
> & I think she should admit it.
>
> /M
Anyone can have an idea - a work of art is a PRODUCTION. Yoko, like all
merely conceptual bods, is a huckster and a fraud and no true artist.
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
What are "bods"?
So when Baudelaire proposed beating up the poor
(<http://ml.hss.cmu.edu/courses/mjwest/French_Graduate_Reading/Assommons%20les%20pauvres.htm>)
should we only believe he was a true artist if we believe he truly did
assault some poor old guy who asked him for spare change?
/M
Tom Deveson
>Yoko, like all
>merely conceptual bods, is a huckster and a fraud and no true artist.
I agree on that -- certainly on everything outside the two parentheses.
What was that ridiculous book of hers called -- *Grapefruit*? Even at
the very silly time it appeared, it was plainly meretricious rubbish.
Borges's *Ficciones*, in comparison, is like King Alfred's jewel next to
something you get out of a bubble gum machine.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
jmc
>
> What are "bods"?
>
I've usually used the expression to mean egg-head types. But the word is
merely a diminutive of bodies.
> So when Baudelaire proposed beating up the poor
>
(<http://ml.hss.cmu.edu/courses/mjwest/French_Graduate_Reading/Assommons%20l
es%20pauvres.htm>)
> should we only believe he was a true artist if we believe he truly did
> assault some poor old guy who asked him for spare change?
>
Baudelaire was a true artists 'cos he sat down and wrote some extraordinary
poetry...
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
As opposed to merely writing recipes for poetry, you mean?
/M
jmc
>
> > Baudelaire was a true artists 'cos he sat down and wrote some
extraordinary
> > poetry...
>
> As opposed to merely writing recipes for poetry, you mean?
>
Yes!!!
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/aaaa.htm>
"BODY PIECE
Stand in the evening light until you
become transparent or until you fall
asleep."
Is that so bad, considered as poetry?
/M
Alan Allport
news:E2S4YdCm...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> Even at the very silly time it appeared, it was plainly meretricious
rubbish.
I liked Gore Vidal's response when his work was described as meretricious -
"well, a meretricious and a happy new year to you too."
Alan.
Tom Deveson
>"BODY PIECE
>Stand in the evening light until you
>become transparent or until you fall
>asleep."
>
>
>Is that so bad, considered as poetry?
Sorry, it doesn't seem to me to have any value. There is no individual
rhythmic force or verbal flavour in it; it's merely a recipe -- to adopt
your accurate term -- for a possible but as yet unwritten poem, and a
cheaply vague and sentimental one at that.
Tom (feeling a bit like Geoffrey Grigson)
--
Tom Deveson
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
Or Simon Cowell?
Re: Grigson, Google turns up a profile on this extremely odd site, which
also recommends against Cruelty to CDs (Dixie Chicks take note):
<http://www.colander.org/gallimaufry/main.html>
Also from Google: a sample of the scrapping:
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8236>
/M
Bonnie
Nothing that a little punctuation can't fix:
'Stand. In the evening light
Until
You become transparent.
Or until
You fall.
Asleep!'
No? ok, get rid of a few words:
'Stand the evening light,
You become transparent
You fall.'
Hmmm more work required. Moving the letters just a little:
'Standin theeve ning
lightun tily ou!
Be comet rans parent orun,
til you fallas leep.'
Yes, that's nice, very nice.
ß.
Martha Bridegam
Bonnie wrote:
> ...
> Hmmm more work required. Moving the letters just a little:
>
> 'Standin theeve ning
> lightun tily ou!
> Be comet rans parent orun,
> til you fallas leep.'
>
> Yes, that's nice, very nice.
> ß.
Nice gentle Middle English effect there. I just Googled "theeve" as most
likely to have an archaic meaning, and in fact among other things it turned
up a Gerald Winstanley tract.
BTW, Joel's word of the week is "bleb," meaning a fluid-filled blister (on
a person) or an air-bubble flaw (in glassware). Per Google there appears to
be something called Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome that sounds like it is
no joke to suffer from but it sure is a strange and wonderful name for a
disease.
/M
Tom Deveson
>'Standin theeve ning
>lightun tily ou!
>Be comet rans parent orun,
>til you fallas leep.'
and thereby dredges from the further depths of my memory something I
must have read when Macmillan and Eisenhower were the names to be used
instead of Blair and Bush.
I sabile eres ago,
fortibus es in aro.
nobile themis fortit rux
se vatcinum pes an dux.
Something like that anyway -- Latinate in appearance, English when
pronounced.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Tom Deveson
> > Tom (feeling a bit like Geoffrey Grigson)
> Or Simon Cowell?
I had to look *him* up, but I'd rather feel like (read, see, talk to,
listen to, agree with, disagree with, etc) the former than the latter
And:
<http://www.colander.org/gallimaufry/main.html>
Thanks for that -- yes, curious but interesting site.
GG's first wife died of TB 'a mere handful of years before the disease
became more curable.' That refrain again.
Tom
bayle
>
> I gather her art gallery work isn't as good, but maybe that's because when
it
> comes to "conceptual art" she seems to put her real energy into having
ideas
> for artworks, not physically creating them.
Good one MAB
bayle
"jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5vkvd$b8u$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E83531D...@pacbell.net...
>
> > I gather her art gallery work isn't as good, but maybe that's because
when
> it
> > comes to "conceptual art" she seems to put her real energy into having
> ideas
> > for artworks, not physically creating them. Didn't she actually publish
a
> book
> > of written recipes for artworks or art events? Perhaps she should mainly
> stick
> > to recipes -- the way Borges and Vonnegut, rather than getting bogged
down
> in
> > long novels, save their own time and the reader's by writing short plot
> > summaries of fictitious novels that would be tedious if written in full.
> >
> > /M
>
> A work of art which hasn't been physically created is not a work of art!
Art
> cannot have recipes, as (unlike cooking) it is not a science.
Good one. And why can't it have recipes? It has everything else? And who
says cooking is a science?
And for the art historically inclined, I would argue that the current war is
the first cubist war in history. Picasso's and Braque's vision has now been
realized.
> Your post
> posits a worrying dislike of human creativity - its implication that a
long
> novel wastes the reader's time is pretty dispiriting. I count the hours
> spent reading Moby Dick or Brothers Karamazov as amongst the best of my
> life!
At least we can agree about something. With you on Melville but prefer
Tolsoy to Mr D. And Proust above all.
ROBBIE
"Bonnie" <qx...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:gbSga.1827$M6.2...@news2.telusplanet.net...
>
> Hmmm more work required. Moving the letters just a little:
>
> 'Standin theeve ning
> lightun tily ou!
> Be comet rans parent orun,
> til you fallas leep.'
Could you black up? Send that to the ICA and they'll send a Lear jet to
Alberta for you!
ROBBIE
LOL!
Good job for Bianca- heaven knows what that sharp tongue of yours would make
of her if she didn't happen to be on your side...
>
>
>
>
>
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
> Martha Bridegam wrote
>
> > > Tom (feeling a bit like Geoffrey Grigson)
>
> > Or Simon Cowell?
>
> I had to look *him* up, but I'd rather feel like (read, see, talk to,
> listen to, agree with, disagree with, etc) the former than the latter
>
OK, that was unfair, sorry.
I've never watched the show itself, but on the Fox channel -- which we
watch strictly for the Sunday night comedies -- they kept rerunning this
clip of Cowell with a pained expression saying, "It was this sort of
*noise*..."
/M
jmc
>
>>
> Good job for Bianca- heaven knows what that sharp tongue of yours would
make
> of her if she didn't happen to be on your side...
>
not a - horror of horrors - consistent one) but I always lift my hat to
people who dedicate their lives to alleviating suffering and standing up for
the rights of the disempowered. She (Bianca) is swell by me - a good dame,
as the Americans used to say...
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
We did?
/M
jmc
"bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:B1Vga.1536$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> Good one. And why can't it have recipes? It has everything else? And who
> says cooking is a science?
>
In cooking, if you're given a recipe (do this, do that) and follow it
correctly, you will always get the same results. Which makes it a science, I
think. But you can tell talentless people until you're blue in the face
various tips on creativity, and they won't be able to create a work of art
in a million years. And every TALENTED person would come up with something
different...
> At least we can agree about something. With you on Melville but prefer
> Tolsoy to Mr D. And Proust above all.
>
Nice to see you like Tolstoy, makes me warm somewhat to you. ;>) But I've
always found Dostoyevsky preferable, but that's probably more to do with
personal taste. But a whole lot better than anything being produced today
that I've seen.
Melville's gobsmackingly good - especially Pierre. One can never get to the
bottom of that mind-game...
Proust - I've never been convinced that memory is a proper muse for art.
jmc
She (Bianca) is swell by me - a good dame,
> > as the Americans used to say...
>
> We did?
>
ROBBIE
there is nothing like a dame and all that
> /M
>
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
Wouldn't that be something like "swell dame"?
"Good dame" sounds more British -- "tell me, good dame, who liveth in that
castle yonder?" -- or maybe a parallel to "good geezer."
/MAB
ROBBIE
> Wouldn't that be something like "swell dame"?
>
> "Good dame" sounds more British -- "tell me, good dame, who liveth in that
> castle yonder?" -- or maybe a parallel to "good geezer."
>
> /MAB
>
<speaking carefully> you..do...know...that people don't speak like that
anymore Mab, don't you...?
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
Wot, don't people say "good geezer" any more?
/M
jmc
>
> Wot, don't people say "good geezer" any more?
>
still say it if they were Guy Ritchie or anyone in his employ. As to the
word most commonly used to describe a fellow in lower-class circles (circles
I inhabit, darlin', before you call me a snob) it would either be bloke
or... well, you wouldn't like me saying, but it begins with C...
ROBBIE
i was referring to:
"Good dame" sounds more British -- "tell me, good dame, who liveth in that
> castle yonder?"
>
> /M
>
ROBBIE
> (He had Bianca Jagger simpering down the phone
> > previously)
>
> I happen to believe that Bianca Jagger is a fine and upstanding person,
full
> of courage, correct (meaning truthful) conviction and global insight.
> Certainly, I'll never know what she saw in that superficial, dilettante
fop
> of an ex-husband!
Dillettante! I assume you refer to his filmmaking; I direct you to Dylan's
dabblings in film, the novel and acting if we're throwing the D word around
;0)
>
>
jmc
>
> Dillettante! I assume you refer to his filmmaking; I direct you to Dylan's
> dabblings in film, the novel and acting if we're throwing the D word
around
> ;0)
>
> >
when it comes to blues music. He would have abandoned it years ago, if it
hadn't been for that ol' voodoo spell cast on him by the extraordinary Mr
Richards. One only has to listen to Mick's solo albums for proof of this...
As to Dylan's films, Renaldo & Clara shows a commitment to coming to terms
with the art of film which a dilettante would never in a million years
display. ;>)
Tom Deveson
>As to the
>word most commonly used to describe a fellow in lower-class circles (circles
>I inhabit, darlin', before you call me a snob) it would either be bloke
>or... well, you wouldn't like me saying, but it begins with C...
Interesting, that one. 'Bloke' still comes most naturally to me, as a
word for an adult male whom either you or your interlocutor don't know.
Thus: Who's that bloke over there? I'll ask this bloke at my work to
send you the book. There were three weird-looking blokes at the station.
Some bloke was spouting a lot of rubbish on Question Time. Wasn't there
a bloke in Tooting last year selling those lampshades. etc. etc.
I've a clear memory of my American cousin's girl-friend -- wife now --
making fun of me for saying it. This was in Maryland in 1966. She
thought it sounded quaint and sort-of affected, but it was just what I
said and still say, since as far back as I can remember.
But I don't think 'lower-class circles' describes whatever circles I
mainly inhabit.
My friend and colleague P (a superb pianist from the colliery region of
Notts) does a wonderful sketch of a former boss of his, the foreman in a
soft-drinks bottling and distribution place, who managed to use the two
basic four-letter obscene words in vast complex traceries of grammatical
and syntactic invention, all to do with the transport and storage of
crates. It's all done in a vowel-perfect Mansfield accent. When he does
a variation, in which the two words are substituted by polite or medical
synonyms, it's good too. 'Taake them genitaalia over theer...'
Slightly similarly, Gavin Ewart did a nice version of the old limerick
about the dons and the swans at St John's, in which every key word is
transposed into its definition in Johnson's Dictionary (1765 edition).
'There exifted a person, not a woman or a boy, being in the firft part
of life, not old, of St John's...'
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
I figured you might be. ;--)
That's only slightly more archaic as King's English than "swell dame" is as
American English.
/M
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
Interesting, thx. I got "good geezer" out of the fairly recent (1980s?) Bill
Buford book *Among the Thugs*. Following standard anthropology technique,
Buford undertakes to drink enough beer with a group of football hooligans to
win their tenative respect and trust. Proof of same being when they call him a
"good geezer."
Why "diamond"?
/M
jmc
I'd hazard a guess that it's because finding or having a diamond is good,
i.e worth a lot.
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b62gda$1he$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>commitment to coming to terms
with the art of film which a dilettante would never in a million years
display. ;>)
Now there's a bit of academic phrasemaking which could, *could* I say, hide
a multitude of sins....
> >
> > >
> Sad to say - and controversially I know, buy Jagger IMO is a dilettante
even
> when it comes to blues music. He would have abandoned it years ago, if it
> hadn't been for that ol' voodoo spell cast on him by the extraordinary Mr
> Richards. One only has to listen to Mick's solo albums for proof of
this...
I don't think you can call someone a dillentante who was at the forefront of
their field and then waned. You can call them a lot of things, and I do, but
dillentante is not one of them.
>
> As to Dylan's films, Renaldo & Clara shows a commitment to coming to terms
> with the art of film which a dilettante would never in a million years
> display. ;>)
>
I haven't, as you know, seen Renaldo and Clara. I've seen little or no
praise for Dylan on-screen or behind camera since Don't Look Back. Then
there's the novel.the execrable performance in Garrett....and Hearts of
Fire. Jagger, if we're going to play tit for tat, does have Performance and
Gimme Shelter on his CV.
I know I know, Freejack, Ned Kelly et al- BUT Hearts of Fire....you must
feeling particularly bloody minded if you're gonna give me a defensible
reading of *that*!
>
Alan Allport
news:s8ZSqTDN...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> Interesting, that one. 'Bloke' still comes most naturally to me, as a
> word for an adult male whom either you or your interlocutor don't know.
I still instinctively say 'bloke' and 'feller' (there's a weird imperial
survival for you) after eight years in the States. And I have noticed that I
have started to say 'gee' from time to time as well; thus I have achieved
the rare feat of being an anachronism in two cultures!
Alan.
ROBBIE
>
> >
>
>
>
>
jmc
> >
> > As to Dylan's films, Renaldo & Clara shows a commitment to coming to
terms
> > with the art of film which a dilettante would never in a million years
> > display. ;>)
>academic phrasemaking which could, *could* I say, hide
> a multitude of sins....
>
Maybe it's the lecturing getting to me. What I meant was - he used his
poetic sensibilities to make a filmic equivalent to his work in music &
poetry.
>
> > > >
> I don't think you can call someone a dillentante who was at the forefront
of
> their field and then waned. You can call them a lot of things, and I do,
but
> dillentante is not one of them.
>
My point is that he dipped his toes in blues music, found he had a talent
for it & it made him a lot of money - the old fruit-machine jackpot metaphor
;>) - but would he have kept at it if it hadn't made him pots? Richards
would, but Jagger?
>
> I haven't, as you know, seen Renaldo and Clara. I've seen little or no
> praise for Dylan on-screen or behind camera since Don't Look Back. Then
> there's the novel.the execrable performance in Garrett....and Hearts of
> Fire. Jagger, if we're going to play tit for tat, does have Performance
and
> Gimme Shelter on his CV.
Since when does praise from critics mean anything? I think he's excellent in
Garrett (the acting is not great but he displays a presense which is more
thaninteresting), and he's no doubt awesome in Masked & Anonymous. I think
they are about equal in terms of film achievements - although Jagger has
never attempted to direct or write for film (but has produced).
> I know I know, Freejack, Ned Kelly et al- BUT Hearts of Fire....you must
> feeling particularly bloody minded if you're gonna give me a defensible
> reading of *that*!
I'd have to find at least 40 microdots for that - although I like his
version of A Couple More Years, it's a splendid moment in the film. The only
one.
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b62kqg$4aj$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> My point is that he dipped his toes in blues music, found he had a talent
> for it & it made him a lot of money - the old fruit-machine jackpot
metaphor
> ;>) - but would he have kept at it if it hadn't made him pots? Richards
> would, but Jagger?
My point was that he became incredibly successful artistically and
commercially and so calling him a dilla at music was plain wrong. Would he
still play now? Dunno, his brother- same gene pool- does and he's virtually
unknown.
>
> >
> > I haven't, as you know, seen Renaldo and Clara. I've seen little or no
> > praise for Dylan on-screen or behind camera since Don't Look Back. Then
> > there's the novel.the execrable performance in Garrett....and Hearts of
> > Fire. Jagger, if we're going to play tit for tat, does have Performance
> and
> > Gimme Shelter on his CV.
>
> Since when does praise from critics mean anything?
Wsn't *just* thinking of critics but everyone I've ever spoken to on the
subject. This argument cannot take wings until I've seen Renaldo and Clara
so hurry up and lend it me!
I think he's excellent in
> Garrett (the acting is not great but he displays a presense which is more
> thaninteresting
He cannot be described, except if you're adoring, as excellent in Garrett.
Interesting, yes. More than interesting, no.
Though I do like the 'reading' scene.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Why does this not surprise me?
/M
jmc
> > My point is that he dipped his toes in blues music, found he had a
talent
> > for it & it made him a lot of money - the old fruit-machine jackpot
> metaphor
> > ;>) - but would he have kept at it if it hadn't made him pots? Richards
> > would, but Jagger?
>
> My point was that he became incredibly successful artistically and
> commercially and so calling him a dilla at music was plain wrong. Would he
> still play now? Dunno, his brother- same gene pool- does and he's
virtually
> unknown.
>
Okay, I take back the diletante, but add "social climbing" to superficial
and fop. I'm tempted to add Thatcherite as well.
> >
>
> Wsn't *just* thinking of critics but everyone I've ever spoken to on the
> subject. This argument cannot take wings until I've seen Renaldo and Clara
> so hurry up and lend it me!
Everyone? Not moi, surely? R&C is in your hand next time I see you. Although
it's bound to send you sky high!
> I think he's excellent in
> > Garrett (the acting is not great but he displays a presense which is
more
> > thaninteresting
>
> He cannot be described, except if you're adoring, as excellent in Garrett.
> Interesting, yes. More than interesting, no.
>
> Though I do like the 'reading' scene.
>
He's excellent from the point of view that nobody else could have done the
role as effectively.
bayle
>
> "bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:B1Vga.1536$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
>
> > Good one. And why can't it have recipes? It has everything else? And who
> > says cooking is a science?
> >
> In cooking, if you're given a recipe (do this, do that) and follow it
> correctly, you will always get the same results. Which makes it a science,
I
> think. But you can tell talentless people until you're blue in the face
> various tips on creativity, and they won't be able to create a work of art
> in a million years. And every TALENTED person would come up with something
> different...
>
I understand your point but I think there are two general problems with the
distinctions drawn.
First, thinks like cocking and also medicine are more accurately described
as arts than sciences IMO. In neither is there a clear understanding of
exactly what is going on. That is not to say that there aren't scientific
parts to both. As there are to art in the necessity for understanding the
materials that the plastic artist must work with. Or architecture which is
perhaps the most finely balanced.
Second the Talent-Something Different association is also problematical.
(and modern by the way, or maybe more accurately described as romantic).
Unless of course you wish to deny the word Talent to the vast majority of
those claiming to be artist. (Where we might agree).
Three sub issues then.
First a story. A painter and professor friend of mine taught at a major
university art school for years. One day I asked him if he was going to the
Master of Fine Arts Show. No, he said. Why?, I asked. He told me a story.
When he was studying at the Art Institute of Chicago a friend of his wanted
to copy an El Greco in the museum. His teacher talked him out of it by
telling him that if he copied El Greco he would lose all his creativity.
Later at the show at the end of the year, my friend went to the show of the
students taught by the teacher who gave the warning. It was a room filled
with paintings, all in the style of the teacher. So he asked, who would you
rather paint like, El Greco or someone you never heard of?
Second, which is somewhat related, why does so much art look or sound the
same? Even most "great" artists repeat themselves or get into ruts. Some
give up and go do something else.
Third, the recipe issue again. I would argue that most of the art in the
museums today was produced either by recipe or produced by artists trained
using recipes. And much of this , including the student work of the masters,
is of high quality. I don't think it is as simple as you paint it. In fact
it may be you who is applying the recipe here ;-)
jmc
>
> Second the Talent-Something Different association is also problematical.
> (and modern by the way, or maybe more accurately described as romantic).
> Unless of course you wish to deny the word Talent to the vast majority of
> those claiming to be artist. (Where we might agree).
>
critics) are, indeed, talentless.
> Second, which is somewhat related, why does so much art look or sound the
> same? Even most "great" artists repeat themselves or get into ruts. Some
> give up and go do something else.
>
But at least they had the talent, vision and ability, even if it waned or
went. Someone like Yoko, never had it.
> Third, the recipe issue again. I would argue that most of the art in the
> museums today was produced either by recipe or produced by artists trained
> using recipes. And much of this , including the student work of the
masters,
> is of high quality. I don't think it is as simple as you paint it. In fact
> it may be you who is applying the recipe here ;-)
>
>
Of course things are never simple - but as someone who has taken more than
my fair share of (script) writing workshops, I can tell you, those that
can't never will be able to! Those artists students you mention, they may
have been following instructions but they had to have a talent for painting
in the first place. Not anybody could have done it. Anyone (using a bit of
common sense) can bake a decent cake from a Delia Smith recipe.
When a true genius is at work, boy do you know it!
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b62n6j$6vg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > > My point is that he dipped his toes in blues music, found he had a
> talent
> > > for it & it made him a lot of money - the old fruit-machine jackpot
> > metaphor
> > > ;>) - but would he have kept at it if it hadn't made him pots?
Richards
> > > would, but Jagger?
> >
> > My point was that he became incredibly successful artistically and
> > commercially and so calling him a dilla at music was plain wrong. Would
he
> > still play now? Dunno, his brother- same gene pool- does and he's
> virtually
> > unknown.
> >
> Okay, I take back the diletante, but add "social climbing" to superficial
> and fop. I'm tempted to add Thatcherite as well.
I bet you are..
social climbing's forgivable- most people do a version of it in their lives
one way or another and for him it's a case of hang with with his income
group, or be like Richards and hang with rastas- but Jagger was bored of
drugs or be like Dylan and have no friends and tour constantly. Thatcherite?
He's a tight cunt I agree and would have welcomed, no doubt, the end of the
Callaghan farce but a) he's too intelligent to be a Thatcherite (though
'Kinger's Amis was one and he was indubitably intelligent; Phil Collins *is*
a Thatcherite but a stupid cunt) b) Politics doesn't really apply to him to
the extant of being an 'ite' because he can piss off and drink Krug in
Mustique if he doesn't like it and c) he wanted to become a Labour MP at one
point and d) the tory press pestered Jagger/Richards for Maggie-backing
quotes throughout the eighties and they gave the 'zzzzzzzzzzzz' sign. *Yes*
he took a knighthood off the british establishment that tried to finish him
and his band but he would counter that the british establishment is now
nicely wanky left and therefore user friendly to a louche ex member of the
counter culture. For the record I think he was a cunt for taking it but in a
way he could see it as winning his own battle. I've never entirely
understood Jagger-bashing; it always seems to me to linked to the
discredited, overrated posturing of Punk Rock and chippy Julie Burchillisms
(became a born again Thatcherite)
> >
> He's excellent from the point of view that nobody else could have done the
> role as effectively.
Micheal J Pollard? Bud Cort?
>
>
>
ROBBIE
>
> Second, which is somewhat related, why does so much art look or sound the
> same? Even most "great" artists repeat themselves or get into ruts. Some
> give up and go do something else.
And run the risk of being called a dilettante
>
jmc
>
>I've never entirely
> understood Jagger-bashing; it always seems to me to linked to the
> discredited, overrated posturing of Punk Rock and chippy Julie
Burchillisms
> (became a born again Thatcherite)
>
artist in a significant way. As I remember it, most punks liked the Stones
(not the critics, of course, but they weren't the real punks). It was the
prog rock brigade we hated, especially Pink Floyd!
> > >
> > He's excellent from the point of view that nobody else could have done
the
> > role as effectively.
>
> Micheal J Pollard? Bud Cort?
>
They wouldn't have had the same mystical significance.
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
Well, um, yes, but why "diamond geezer" and not for example "platinum geezer"
or "ambergris geezer"?
While we're at it, someone said Maclaren-Ross was "on his uppers." Means what
literally? All I can figure is something to do with worn-out shoes, i.e. soles
have worn out, only uppers are left.
/M
Tom Deveson
>While we're at it, someone said Maclaren-Ross was "on his uppers." Means what
>literally? All I can figure is something to do with worn-out shoes, i.e. soles
>have worn out, only uppers are left.
Exactly. According to Partridge (Dictionary of Historical Slang) it came
to the UK around 1900, having originated in the USA.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Henry
> I still instinctively say ... 'feller' (there's a weird imperial
> survival for you) after eight years in the States.
But do you have an r-less dialect? So it comes out 'fella'? That might
be a bit old-fashioned in America, but it's still common enough.
cheers,
Henry
Bonnie
>
>
> Bonnie wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Hmmm more work required. Moving the letters just a little:
> >
> > 'Standin theeve ning
> > lightun tily ou!
> > Be comet rans parent orun,
> > til you fallas leep.'
> >
> > Yes, that's nice, very nice.
> > ß.
>
> Nice gentle Middle English effect there. I just Googled "theeve" as
most
> likely to have an archaic meaning, and in fact among other things it
turned
> up a Gerald Winstanley tract.
>
> BTW, Joel's word of the week is "bleb," meaning a fluid-filled blister
(on
> a person) or an air-bubble flaw (in glassware). Per Google there
appears to
> be something called Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome that sounds like it
is
> no joke to suffer from but it sure is a strange and wonderful name for
a
> disease.
>
> /M
let's start a new feature, *Joel's Word of the Week* (J-wow for short) it
could be very interesting... or would it lead to verbicide?
ß.
>
bayle
Duchamp was an example. He played chess and mostly dabbled IIRC.
bayle
{snip]
> Of course things are never simple - but as someone who has taken more than
> my fair share of (script) writing workshops, I can tell you, those that
> can't never will be able to!
I suspect we would share a large number of aesthetic judgments. I feel more
comfortable saying what is good or bad than whether something is art or not.
But I like your example above. One of the things I learned about
screen-writing (when I dabbled in it) is that there are plenty of people who
have written one screen play and had it rejected, but there a many fewer who
have written five and had them rejected.
The point being that those who are artists often keep going when common
sense, fear or whatever drives most others away. I say this as someone who
hasn't finished one though I have started a few.
So I guess I have a little more faith in persistence or sweat in the
formation of genius than you seem to. Sorry if I've misread the tenor of
your comments.
bayle
>
> My point is that he dipped his toes in blues music, found he had a talent
> for it & it made him a lot of money - the old fruit-machine jackpot
metaphor
> ;>) - but would he have kept at it if it hadn't made him pots? Richards
> would, but Jagger?
To say that Jagger dipped his tow in blues music is a major misjudgment.
Tell me what is a better blues record than Exile on Mainstreet since it was
made. There is none.
Jagger and Richards (perhaps you can sort them out, I can't) were the
legitimate heirs to Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Otis Rush and the greats.
Just because they mixed in some rock and roll and some posing doesn't change
that. Those who were their said the Muddy Waters did a little posing of his
own in the old days.
Leonardo wasn't a dilettante because he didn't paint that much was he? In
the old days they weren't called dilettantes, the were called Renaissance
men.
Bobby Farouk
warning, and then the next time a representative from the Human Resource
Department would escort us out of the building and send us on our merry way
to the unemployment office.
Bobby Farouk
"Henry" <henr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1fsklg4.8pw8xmqd4l8gN%henr...@eircom.net...
"Fella" is acceptable, but you must never say it in the company of your
teenage children's friends.
ROBBIE
Wish he'd *just* played chess- would have saved us Damien Hirst and a
thousand others...
>
>
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b62pc6$8id$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >I've never entirely
> > understood Jagger-bashing; it always seems to me to linked to the
> > discredited, overrated posturing of Punk Rock and chippy Julie
> Burchillisms
> > (became a born again Thatcherite)
> >
> My bone of contention with the man is that he's failed to develop as an
> artist in a significant way.
I know- he still sings about women whereas Dylan sings about women, with
jesus, mozambique, coffee and death as variations.... Musically, both men
reached their apotheosis in their late twenties and have been going,
interestingly and not so interestingly, downhill ever since. Jagger did
write Highwire in 91 which was certainly no Thacherite song. "We sell 'em
missiles, we sell 'em tanks..."
As I remember it, most punks liked the Stones
> (not the critics, of course, but they weren't the real punks). It was the
> prog rock brigade we hated, especially Pink Floyd!
>
> > > >
> > > He's excellent from the point of view that nobody else could have done
> the
> > > role as effectively.
> >
> > Micheal J Pollard? Bud Cort?
> >
> They wouldn't have had the same mystical significance.
I think i'm going to leave this one here...:0O
>
>
ROBBIE
Good point Bayley boy!
>
>
Martha Bridegam
Bonnie wrote:
>
> >
> > BTW, Joel's word of the week is "bleb," meaning a fluid-filled blister
> (on
> > a person) or an air-bubble flaw (in glassware). Per Google there
> appears to
> > be something called Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome that sounds like it
> is
> > no joke to suffer from but it sure is a strange and wonderful name for
> a
> > disease.
> >
> > /M
>
> let's start a new feature, *Joel's Word of the Week* (J-wow for short) it
> could be very interesting... or would it lead to verbicide?
> ß.
I certainly hope not.
He's discovered Googlewhacking, so some of the words are getting distinctly
odd.
See <http://www.googlewhack.com/>.
/M
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > >I've never entirely
> > > understood Jagger-bashing; it always seems to me to linked to the
> > > discredited, overrated posturing of Punk Rock and chippy Julie
> > Burchillisms
> > > (became a born again Thatcherite)
> > >
> > My bone of contention with the man is that he's failed to develop as an
> > artist in a significant way.
>
> I know- he still sings about women whereas Dylan sings about women, with
> jesus, mozambique, coffee and death as variations....
Keep that phrase and use it in something.
/M
Tom Deveson
> Anyone can have an idea - a work of art is a PRODUCTION. Yoko, like all
> merely conceptual bods, is a huckster and a fraud and no true artist.
I was in the Vietnamese take-away at Camberwell Green this evening.
They had yesterday's *Sun* by the counter. There's Richard Littlejohn
banging on about how the BBC should be bombed, and then there's a
picture of Yoko Ono with a pound coin and a *Sun* T-shirt, joining in
the paper's campaign to Give A Quid for an Iraqi Kid.
And she's keeping very distinguished artistic company in the campaign
-- no less than Dale Winton.
Tom
ROBBIE
> jmc wrote
>
> > Anyone can have an idea - a work of art is a PRODUCTION. Yoko, like all
> > merely conceptual bods, is a huckster and a fraud and no true artist.
>
> I was in the Vietnamese take-away at Camberwell Green this evening.
> They had yesterday's *Sun* by the counter. There's Richard Littlejohn
> banging on about how the BBC should be bombed,
Well, much as I find Littlejohn irritating, after seeing the gloating
Nicholas Witchell and the openly pro-Iraq Rageh Omaar tonight, I think
*something* ought to happen.
bayle
LOL. Agree about the artistic judgment, but ...
Why is Duchamp, who essentially showed the way to total freedom, responsible
for its abuse? Duchamp, more that any other artist in the century combined
art, science, sex and humor, planning and chance. It was an art about both
concepts and objects, the imagination and the mundane. Ultimately it was an
art about ideas.
His Nude Descending is one of the great paintings of the century.
http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html
His Bride Stripped Bare (in Phila by the way and it isn't going anywhere)
maybe the greatest art work of the century. Certainly the greatest
sculpture. And it fused sculpture and painting in a way that no one had done
before.
http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/bride.html
Finally his Étant donnés collapsed the distinction between the art world and
the life world.
http://tovarr.roma2.infn.it/27THGAL/DUCINT/duch1.htm
And then there is my favorite picture of him, playing chess against eros in
front of the Bride Stripped Bare. (Not to be missed)
http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Notes/gerrard/pop_3.html
***
Like it or not, Duchamp and Warhol created much of the world we live in. Now
we (i.e. you - being as you're the artist) just have to dig ourselves out
of the hole they created.
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b642c8$g75$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:zndha.2115$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > >
> > > "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:b62pob$jr0$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > "bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:wr5ha.1763$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, which is somewhat related, why does so much art look or
> sound
> > > the
> > > > > same? Even most "great" artists repeat themselves or get into
ruts.
> > Some
> > > > > give up and go do something else.
> > > >
> > > > And run the risk of being called a dilettante
> > > >
> > >
> > > Duchamp was an example. He played chess and mostly dabbled IIRC.
> >
> > Wish he'd *just* played chess- would have saved us Damien Hirst and a
> > thousand others...
> >
>
> LOL. Agree about the artistic judgment, but ...
>
> Why is Duchamp, who essentially showed the way to total freedom,
responsible
> for its abuse?
Because its so easy to abandon any kind of rigour or technical knowledge or
*anything* and get away with it. He blueprinted the modern conceptual
bullshitters; which is why, in spite of obvious brilliance, I find it hard
to like him.
Ideas art? Its a tricky subject. My instinct and my experience in art school
tell me that most conceptual artists are lazy minded; they're often
indefatigable self publicists and starfuckers, but try getting them to talk
or write...All conceptual art that i've seen has made me think 'well yeah,
that's what i'd come up with if I was a bit stoned saturday night.' Emin,
Hirst et al I'd be too *ashamed* to offer these doper conceits to the world.
But its been licensed and there's not much turning back from it. I'm not
that conservative in art, I just find concept art rather inadequate and
abstract painting boring. Things like Rothko make do this kind of
yawn/giggle.
>
> His Nude Descending is one of the great paintings of the century.
> http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html
nice- terrible word but what the hey?
>
> His Bride Stripped Bare (in Phila by the way and it isn't going anywhere)
> maybe the greatest art work of the century. Certainly the greatest
> sculpture. And it fused sculpture and painting in a way that no one had
done
> before.
> http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/bride.html
It doesn't do much for me but I accept it as blindingly innovative in the
art-career-as-chess movement.
>
> Finally his Étant donnés collapsed the distinction between the art world
and
> the life world.
> http://tovarr.roma2.infn.it/27THGAL/DUCINT/duch1.htm
yes but like Jimi Hendrix inspiring dreadful heavy metal guitarists, can
this now be seen as a good thing?....
>
> And then there is my favorite picture of him, playing chess against eros
in
> front of the Bride Stripped Bare. (Not to be missed)
> http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Notes/gerrard/pop_3.html
>
> ***
>
> Like it or not, Duchamp and Warhol created much of the world we live in.
I don't much like it.
Now
> we (i.e. you - being as you're the artist) just have to dig ourselves out
> of the hole they created.
Yeah; you just have to plough your own aesthetic furrow and bear in mind
what a charlatan Warhol was- eminently quotable though...
>
>
bayle
I agree about the rigor and the bullshit. And if I had first run into him
now, when lack of rigor and bullshit were the norm I would probably feel
like you do.
But back then it seemed like he opened a great number of worthwhile (in the
sense of worth investigating) possibilities. In that sense I think your
Hendrix analogies are right on target. A genius, but how many do we really
need?
And the recipe boys, the followers, just don't cut it. I once walked out of
a Stevie Ray Vaughn concert because I found him boring. Just going thorough
the motions, though maybe faster. But who cares. Maybe Keith is a limited
player but it doesn't matter does it? Because the end product talks to you,
like imitation doesn't.
Which is why I think you can over-emphasize rigor. It's a balance in most
cases. Which is why most of us aren't interested in listening to all the
graduates of music schools, even though they may be technically outstanding.
>
> Ideas art? Its a tricky subject. My instinct and my experience in art
school
> tell me that most conceptual artists are lazy minded; they're often
> indefatigable self publicists and starfuckers, but try getting them to
talk
> or write...All conceptual art that i've seen has made me think 'well yeah,
> that's what i'd come up with if I was a bit stoned saturday night.' Emin,
> Hirst et al I'd be too *ashamed* to offer these doper conceits to the
world.
> But its been licensed and there's not much turning back from it. I'm not
> that conservative in art, I just find concept art rather inadequate and
> abstract painting boring. Things like Rothko make do this kind of
> yawn/giggle.
>
I agree a very tricky subject. I also agree about Rothko. But sometimes the
visual experience overcomes the conceptual preparededness to dismiss. I had
such an experience once in front of a Pollock. The idea was innovative but I
was unprepared for the power of the final product.
I guess that's what makes art so interesting.
I have found memories of listening to Bowie in the presence of a Marilyn
silk-screen in the American mid-west when we all wanted to be in London. Oh
to be young and hip ... ey?
ROBBIE
>
> And the recipe boys, the followers, just don't cut it. I once walked out
of
> a Stevie Ray Vaughn concert because I found him boring. Just going
thorough
> the motions, though maybe faster. But who cares. Maybe Keith is a limited
> player but it doesn't matter does it? Because the end product talks to
you,
> like imitation doesn't.
Absolutely.
>
> Which is why I think you can over-emphasize rigor. It's a balance in most
> cases. Which is why most of us aren't interested in listening to all the
> graduates of music schools, even though they may be technically
outstanding.
V. good point.
>
> I have found memories of listening to Bowie in the presence of a Marilyn
> silk-screen in the American mid-west when we all wanted to be in London.
Oh
> to be young and hip ... ey?
>
Well yeah- that's yer twenties innit? It's nice to feel young and hip. I
think I am young and hip.
>
Nigee
> Ideas art? Its a tricky subject. My instinct and my experience in art school
> tell me that most conceptual artists are lazy minded; they're often
> indefatigable self publicists and starfuckers, but try getting them to talk
> or write...All conceptual art that i've seen has made me think 'well yeah,
> that's what i'd come up with if I was a bit stoned saturday night.' Emin,
> Hirst et al I'd be too *ashamed* to offer these doper conceits to the world.
> But its been licensed and there's not much turning back from it. I'm not
> that conservative in art, I just find concept art rather inadequate and
> abstract painting boring. Things like Rothko make do this kind of
> yawn/giggle.
>
You've seen that Rothko room at the Tate Modern I guess? I hold no
particular candle for abstract art but I reckon its the best thing in
there. It's best enjoyed on a Friday night when they are open late,
just before kicking out time. You can generally sit on your own in
the room entirely undisturbed. I found it powerful. A friend burst
into tears in that room. Myabe that... means something.. dunno.
Martha Bridegam
Nigee wrote:
Don't you hold a candle to something but hold a brief for something?
/M
bayle
> >
> > I have found memories of listening to Bowie in the presence of a Marilyn
> > silk-screen in the American mid-west when we all wanted to be in London.
> Oh
> > to be young and hip ... ey?
> >
>
> Well yeah- that's yer twenties innit? It's nice to feel young and hip. I
> think I am young and hip.
Yep.
But being young and hip now, you are the future. The opportunities for real
art over the next 10 -20 years, as the remnants of boomerism collapses,
ought to be limitless. The world is changing big time, and none of us has a
clue where it is going.
I think you have a head start, because you see both the decadence,
corruption and sterility on the one hand, and the utopian idealism and
naiveté, on the other, present in so much of what is going on now. I think
that after the war there will be a clearing away. When the wanky left is
killed of then maybe we can build something new and better. Hopefully you
can step into the open spaces and lead the way.